Last night, not for the first time, someone on twitter decided to take the law into their own hands and tweeted the names of everyone who allegedly had taken out so-called super-injunctions.

To my limited knowledge, some were right, some were wrong and some were very wrong. (As Jemima Khan pointed out on Twitter when named as having taken one out to keep secret photographs of her and a certain middle-aged lad TV presenter. She was outraged. And who can blame her. I mean, would YOU?!)

My instinct is usually that there's no smoke without fire, so when I hear rumours about a certain chef with a, er, firey reputation, my inclination is to believe them - because if this one isn't true, there are so many, you can bet one of the others is. But you have to feel a bit sorry for public figures who are incorrectly outed in this way. Take one very hot in Hollywood Brit actor who has made a certain sort of English role his own and has a cast iron rep as a family man. Yes, Colin Firth. The poor sod was the first to have a super-injunction falsely pinned on him. Classily, Firth didn't make a fuss or deny it on the front of any papers. He and everyone who knows him, I imagine, knew it was ridiculous and the rumour died, as rumours are wont to do when they are false.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

But when they are true, rumours build, injunction or no injunction. In this instance, to my (and it would seem most other people's, including the Daily Mail's) knowledge, the real super-rat is someone much closer to home - and frankly much less interesting and glamorous. Although he has now made himself a subject of national fascination by hiding behind this ridiculous ruling.

What's the point? The point is this: super-injunctions are 1) wrong and 2) a joke.

Firstly, by all means shag around, have affairs, visit prostitutes, I personally don't care, but I do care if you then try to present a holier than thou image while doing it. And I care even more if you then ask the law to do what you, as a parent, have patently failed to do: protect your children. So here's a failsafe (not to mention cheap as chips) way to protect your family: keep it in your pants.

And secondly, what most of the public figures hiding, not very effectively, behind super-injunctions don't appear to realise is they have just made us all a lot more interested in their personal affairs than we would otherwise have been.

RED, PART OF THE HEARST UK FASHION & BEAUTY NETWORK
Red Online participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.